discuss: TLDP and the Commercial World
Subject:
Re: TLDP and the Commercial World
From:
doug jensen ####@####.####
Date:
28 Feb 2005 19:40:05 -0000
Message-Id: <20050228193930.GA5682@debian>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:28:39PM +0100, Stein Gjoen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> To avoid further topic drift I am taking this to a separate thread.
>
> Machtelt Garrels wrote:
> [snip]
> > I agree with what was said before on free documents on non-free software:
> > it is not really our task to host those and we should be carefull
> > accepting those documents. Often they are written and contributed to TLDP
> > because no good documentation is available for a product, but we run then
> > the risk that the company owning the software lets TLDP/the community do
> > the work, so that they can lateron "steel" the documentation, and include
> > it in their product at no cost.
>
> The only cases of abuse I know of so far are those of SCO putting
> a non-compliant license to their locally hosted copy TLDP collection
> and several cases of rampant advertising added to HOWTOs. As far as
> I know these cases have not been too problematic.
Could you provide more detail on how SCO has not been problematic?
>
> One hard disk manufacturer has linked to my Multi Disk HOWTO since
> it makes a point of advantages with having several disks, something
> a manufacturer also sees benefits in. They have not misrepresented
> the document and I cannot see any problems here. It does give my
> HOWTO a better coverage.
Tille was addressing issues regarding free documentation and non-free
software, your example addresses documentation of hardware issues. Would
you mind clarifying with regard to free documentation and non-free
software, particularly but not exlusively with regard to closed-source?
Personally, I don't think documentation of closed-source software should
be accepted at all, it is like a mouse providing assistance to a cat.
Non-free open-source software can lead to vendor lock-in which puts the
user in a compromised position. (Note that the non-free is generally
intended to refer to the state of freedom, not necessarily to the state
of cost.)
>
> If we all agree this is a good thing and that this is not abuse we
> might improve TLDP coverage by cooperating with various companies.
> Many send CD-ROMs with their products and might be interested in
> adding relevant HOWTOs as the CD-ROMs are rarely full.
>
> I believe a company that steals and change the copyright would end
> up with so much negative coverage they would regret it for a long
> time. There is a slight risk a technical author might steal entire
> sections out of HOWTOs to save time and effort. It is possible that
> happened several years ago and the situation was defused properly
> which is quietly.
I disagree. Open, calm discussion is much better, and others can benefit
from understanding the resolution. Quiet, resolutions can lead to FUD,
half-baked solutions, and secret agreements. Open discussion can lead to
problems too, but at least it is possible to figure out where the problems
are.
>
> All in all I belive we should look at the possibilities of cooperating
> with companies rather than fearing them. Both parties have a lot to
> gain from this.
Who are you referring to that fears companies? I know that I don't. I
just want the ones that aren't, to get off their thrones and work
cooperatively with their customers and society. Alot of companies
engage in manipulative and deceptive practices, that is bad and should
not be accepted.
>
> Regards,
> Stein Gjoen
--
Doug Jensen
